Epstein Secrets

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

o be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 4O7, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1

f an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (ls' Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11th Cir. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same t

will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed!" Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted). Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

o be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 4O7, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

o be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1

of an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (1" Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (I1th Cu. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same te

ill understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.'" Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted). Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help

§§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States'. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repos

o be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States I . Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 5.O. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle . United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States'. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (197

hment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

o be interpreted in I favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle . United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States'. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (197

will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed!" Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted). Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help

f an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (ls' Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11th Cir. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same t